2012 will be a momentous year for the SKA.
I expect significant progress following a productive 2011 that saw the incorporation of the SKA Organisation as a legal entity, with Michiel van Harlem as interim Director General.
As a testament to the global nature of the project, SKA Organisation membership includes Australia, China, Italy, The Netherlands, New Zealand, South Africa and the United Kingdom, and this list is expected to grow.
As we embark on the 4-year pre-construction phase, the Organisation is poised to make decisions of fundamental importance to the long-term success of the SKA; and the most important of all is the decision on the host site.
In mid-February, the SKA Organisation is likely to receive the recommendation on a preferred site for the SKA from the expert SKA Site Advisory Committee. It is anticipated that the Members of the SKA Organisation will then enter into negotiations with the preferred site, followed by a decision and announcement in March/April this year.
A clear recommendation at this stage would not only assist in expediting the decision on the site, but also ensure that the decision is predominantly merit-based, leading to the best scientific return on investment for the countries contributing to the project.
The ANZSCC believes that there are clear grounds for differentiation between the sites and that Australia and New Zealand is the best site for the SKA. Siting the SKA in Australia and New Zealand would maximise science outcomes while minimising risk. Australia and New Zealand would provide simplicity and stability to one of the most challenging, yet rewarding, science infrastructure projects of the 21st century.
Important strengths of the Australian/New Zealand site include:
- The intrinsic radio quietness of a core site that has less than 100 people living within 100km.
- The strength of radio-quietness protection over an area 520km in diameter, backed by comprehensive legislation enshrined in a National Radio Communications Act – in place and active.
- The excellent geophysics of the site, providing ample flat land for constructing the antenna stations at all core, intermediate and remote scales.
- The existence of a broadband research network with optical fibre that is capable of carrying SKA data rates at affordable cost to the project.
- The ability to provide the minimum required 3000km baseline for SKA within a single, politically stable country.
- The ability to enhance the maximum resolution of SKA by over 60% by including New Zealand; a country with extremely close social, economic, political and legal ties to Australia.
- An optimised East-West configuration which maximises the area of sky over which high quality images can be obtained.
- The ability to optimally configure the SKA array stations so that each station is in a radio-quiet area based on the strict international standards adopted by SKA.
- A safe and secure environment for SKA staff and their families; Perth was recently identified as the 8th most liveable city in the world, Geraldton was a finalist in the 2011 International Awards for Liveable Communities.
- Over 50 years experience in operating world-class astronomy facilities for the world from Australia.
For such an important decision, a number of factors and possible outcomes have been considered. The issue of a split site has been raised a number of times.
The ANZSCC does not favour a split site outcome that would have significant impact on the science outcomes of the project. We believe that a full-scale SKA as envisioned by the international community is both achievable and desirable.
A significant split of the SKA site by either frequency or collecting area is not supported by the SKA science case. Moreover, the SKA Science and Engineering Committee has considered the arguments for splitting the array on a number of occasions and found no scientific justification to do so – indeed it concluded that a split array would damage the science of the SKA. In addition, there would be an inevitable cost overhead of constructing and operating two major sites rather than one. Although dependent on the nature of the split, current estimates put the additional infrastructure construction overhead alone at hundreds of millions of dollars.
Another issue commonly raised is the relative costs to construct and operate the SKA on either site. In preparing our site submission, ANZSCC demonstrated that a ‘big picture’ SKA with long baselines is achievable in Australia and New Zealand. There are a large number of factors that contribute towards project costs – most notably infrastructure and risk. The low risk associated with deploying infrastructure in Australia and New Zealand (countries with vast experience in large-scale projects) and the existence of thousands of kilometres of SKA-ready fibre-optic networks already in the ground, Australia and New Zealand can offer a highly cost effective solution for the SKA.
We therefore look forward to a clear recommendation from the SKA Site Advisory Committee. If a site decision is made around maximising the science outcomes for the SKA, we stand ready to work with the international community to realise this full potential for the SKA – and deliver one of the world’s most ambitious and exciting science projects of the 21st century.
For regular project updates, follow me on twitter - www.twitter.com/BrianBoyleSKA